After  the  War,  What  ? 


A PLEA 

FOR 

A League  of  Peace 


IRVING  FISHER 


THE  CHURCH  PEACE  UNION 
70  Fifth  Avenue 

NEW  YORK 


Note. — This  essay  on  a League  of  Peace,  by  Professor  Irving 
Fisher  of  Yale  University,  is  of  especial  significance  not  only  because 
of  the  uniqueness  of  its  proposals,  but  because  of  its  history.  While  it 
is  now  being  published  at  a time  when  many  minds  are  converging  on 
a League  of  the  Nations,  it  was  prepared  twenty-five  years  before  the 
present  war  and  read  to  the  Yale  Political  Science  Club,  May  17,  1890. 
When  the  present  war  broke  out  Professor  Fisher  rewrote  it  and  it 
appeared  in  the  New  York  Times  of  August  16,  1914.  It  was  read  by 
Lord  Bryce  with  great  interest,  and  Professor  Fisher  is  now  engaged, 
in  conjunction  with  others — notably  Dr.  Hamilton  Holt — in  elaborating 
some  of  the  practical  details  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions  of  Lord 
Bryce  in  the  following  letter. — The  Editor. 


Letter  from  Lord  Bryce 


3,  Buckingham  Gate,  London,  S.  W. 

November  25,  1914. 


Dear  Professor  Fisher: 

Thank  you  for  your  article  entitled  “After  the  War, 
What?”,  which  I ought  to  have  acknowledged  sooner.  I have 
read  it  with  very  great  interest  and  quite  agree  with  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  it  proceeds.  The  real  difficulty  seems  to  be  to 
feel  much  hope  that  the  states  of  Europe  would  take  so  bold 
and  novel  a step  as  to  entrust  the  requisite  powers  to  an 
international  council,  and  I should  be  glad  if  you  were  to 
find  time  to  work  out  your  idea  in  detail,  indicating  the  pro- 
cess, how  the  international  council  would  be  composed, 
whether  of  delegates  of  the  several  governments,  merely  giving 
the  views  of  their  governments,  or  whether  of  persons  of 
more  independence,  eminent  by  their  character,  experience 
and  reputation,  who  would  be  able  to  make  up  in  moral 
authority  for  what  they  might  want  in  executive  power.  Our 
fear  is  that  if  you  left  these  things  to  the  mere  delegates  of 
the  governments  of  the  powers,  the  old  system  of  intrigue- 
forming combinations  would  recommence,  and  as  soon  as  a 
cause  for  war  appeared,  parties  among  the  states  would 
declare  themselves,  and  the  general  interest  of  checking  war 
would  give  way  to  the  special  interest  of  the  parties  involved. 
It  is,  however,  amply  evident  to  thinking  men,  both  in  Europe 


3 


and  in  America,  that  something  ought  to  be  attempted  to  pre- 
vent the  recurrence  of  such  frightful  calamities  as  those 
from  which  we  are  now  suffering.  If  you  would  think 
further  over  the  matter  and  give  us  a more  detailed  scheme 
we  should  be  very  grateful,  for  many  among  us  in  this  country 
are  anxiously  reflecting  on  the  very  problems  you  have  set 
forth  so  lucidly  in  your  paper. 

Yours  very  truly. 

Professor  Irving  Fisher,  (Signed)  James  Bryce. 

Yale  University. 


4 


After  the  War,  What? 

By  Irving  Fisher 

Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Yale  University 

(Reprinted  from  the  New  York  Times,  Sunday,  August  16,  1914,  with 
some  additions  and  alterations.) 

For  I dipt  into  the  future,  far  as  human  eye  could  see. 

Saw  the  vision  of  the  world,  and  all  the  wonder  that  would  be ; 

Saw  the  heavens  fill  with  commerce,  argosies  of  magic  sails, 

Pilots  of  the  purple  twilight,  dropping  down  with  costly  bales ; 
Heard  the  heavens  fill  with  shouting,  and  there  rain’d  a ghastly  dew 
From  the  nations’  airy  navies  grappling  in  the  central  blue; 

Far  along  the  world-wide  whisper  of  the  south  wind  rushing  warm. 
With  the  standards  of  the  peoples  plunging  thro’  the  thunder  storm ; 
Till  the  war  drum  throbb’d  no  longer,  and  the  battleflags  were  furl’d 
In  the  Parliament  of  man,  the  Federation  of  the  world. 

There  the  common  sense  of  most  shall  hold  a fretful  realm  in  awe. 
And  the  kindly  earth  shall  slumber,  lapt  in  universal  law. 

(From  Tennyson’s  “Locksley  Hall.”  First  published  in  1842.) 

Without  taking  sides,  this  article  aims  to  show : 

(1)  That  the  “fault”  for  this  war  lies  little,  if  at  all,  with 
any  individual  or  nation,  but  with  the  system  (or 
lack  of  system)  of  governments  in  Europe. 

(2)  That  with  modern  fast  transportation  nations  close 
to  each  other  are  forced  to  compete  in  armaments, 
the  competition  being  analogous  to  the  so-called  “cut- 
throat” competition  in  business. 

(3)  That  an  essential  in  any  scheme  to  prevent  the 
recurrence  of  such  rivalry  and  the  risk  of  a general 
war  which  it  entails,  is  some  form,  however  rudi- 
mentary, of  international  government,  including  an 
arbitration  court  with  international  police  power  to 
enforce  its  decrees. 

(4)  That  without  some  such  arrangement  following 
the  present  war — even  if  every  other  measure  be 
taken  which  tends  to  maintain  peace — there  will,  in 


5 


all  probability,  be  a periodical  repetition  of  such  a 
European  conflagration  in  the  future  owing  to  the 
international  racing  in  armaments  which  will  inevita- 
bly begin  anew. 

(5)  That,  though  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  effective 
international  control  are  prodigious,  the  present  war 
affords  a golden  opportunity  to  overcome  these 
obstacles. 

Most  people  are  greatly  concerned  as  to  where  to  place 
the  blame  for  the  present  war.  Individuals  are  taking  sides 
according  to  the  racial  or  national  prejudices  w'hich  they 
have  inherited  or  which  are  current  in  their  environment. 
Almost  everyone  takes  for  granted  that  someone  is  to  blame. 

But  an  unbiased  study  will  find  it  difficult  to  assign 
much  blame  to  anybody.  When  we  come  to  examine  the  acts 
and  decisions  of  the  various  nations  in  the  three  weeks  pre- 
ceding the  war  we  are  struck  with  the  fact  that  each  decided 
as  it  did  because  there  was  scarcely  any  other  choice  left  open. 
Each  warring  nation,  of  course,  blames  its  own  enemies. 
But  it  is  almost  as  difficult  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  this 
war  as  it  is  to  fix,  in  a mob,  the  responsibility  for  a lynching, 
and  for  the  same  reason.  The  anomaly  of  the  situation  is 
that  the  nations,  one  after  another,  were  forced  to  choose  war 
while  preferring  peace. 

No,  the  fault  does  not  lie  in  any  large  degree  with 
individual  nations  or  persons.  We  shall  be  doing  an  historic 
injustice  in  trying  to  make  somebody  the  scapegoat.  Besides, 
we  shall  be  missing  the  point. 

The  true  philosophy  of  this  war  is  not  one  of  praise  or 
blame,  but  of  social  cause  and  effect.  The  great  and  useless 
slaughter  which  we  are  now  witnessing  affords  a study  in 
social  pathology.  The  universal  war  fever  which  seemed  so 
suddenly  to  burst  on  Europe  is  but  a symptom  of  a terrible 
disease  of  the  body  politic,  a disease  which  has  been  gradually 
gnawing  at  the  vitals  of  Europe  for  more  than  half  a century. 
It  is  hard  for  us  Americans,  who  are  fortunate  in  never 


6 


having  had  this  particular  war  disease,  to  understand  its  real 
nature.  Why  should  a quarrel  over  a little  nation  in  the  south 
of  Europe  compel  an  innocent  little  nation  a thousand  miles 
in  the  north  to  suffer  invasion  and  devastation  ? The  thing 
would  be  comic,  if  it  were  not  tragic.  We  look  on  with 
amazement  and  ask:  Has  Europe  gone  mad?  If  not,  what 
could  have  induced  so  many  millions  of  people  to  put  all 
Western  civilization  in  jeopardy? 

CONTACT  LEADS  TO  CONFLICT 

In  the  development  of  society,  close  intercourse  always 
requires  regulation.  The  disease  of  Europe  lies  in  the  rapid 
growth  of  close  intercourse  between  its  nations  without 
any  corresponding  growth  in  the  required  regulation.  Our 
diagnosis  is  “increased  proximity  without  increased  regula- 
tion.” Close  and  frequent  contact  between  nations  must  needs 
give  rise  to  disputes.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  it  is 
on  the  border  between  nations  where  the  contact  is  most  close 
and  frequent  that  international  hatred  is  most  intense.  The 
same  results  would  occur  in  any  other  place  or  time.  Wherever 
close  and  complicated  international  relations  exist  without  any 
effective  international  control,  there  will  be  a strong  tendency 
toward  international  disputes,  great  navies  and  standing  armies, 
and  occasionally  war.  The  malady  is  not  militarism ; militar- 
ism is  merely  the  chief  symptom.  Nor  is  it  autocracy  nor 
secret  diplomacy  nor  selfish  tariffs. 

It  may  be  difficult  for  us  to  admit  the  fact,  but  if  our 
forty-eight  states,  instead  of  having  a federal  government, 
had  each  its  own  independent  government  and  military,  we 
should  find  ourselves  in  the  same  situation  as  Europe.  There 
would  inevitably  be  increasing  standing  armies,  oppressive 
taxation,  and  eventually  war.  Fortunately  we  have  a political 
union  among  the  states  befitting  their  proximity  and  com- 
mercial connections.  But  the  states  of  Europe  have  no 
political  union  beyond  unenforcible  and,  therefore,  unreliable 
treaties.  They  are  now  too  close  together  to  get  along 


7 


without  the  restraints  of  enforcible  international  law.  They 
have  every  other  sort  of  connection  but  political;  they  have 
international  commerce  and  travel ; they  interchange  ideas. 
The  crying  need  is  for  effective  regulation  of  this  growing 
volume  of  international  intercourse. 

The  family  of  nations  in  Europe  cannot  live  together  in 
peace  unless  they  govern  themselves.  They  lack  government, 
precisely  as  the  gold  miner  in  California  in  the  50’s  lacked 
government.  Here  were  a number  of  selfish  men  suddenly 
brought  into  close  proximity  without  any  government.  The 
consequence  was  that  each  had  to  carry  firearms.  Then 
vigilance  committees  were  improvised,  and  later  a stable 
government  brought  disarmament.  In  the  beginning  each 
individual  was  an  independent  sovereign ; but  he  soon  found 
it  profitable  to  surrender  part  of  his  independence  to  secure 
protection.  The  nations  need  to  protect  themselves  from 
themselves.  VVe  might  well  write  over  the  parti-colored  map 
of  Europe : Wanted,  an  International  Government.  Only 

such  a government,  or  at  any  rate  some  form  of  international 
bond,  bids  fair  to  cure  the  disease. 

In  physiology,  health  is  described  as  an  harmonious 
adjustment  of  organs.  If  the  heart  is  hypertrophied  or  any 
organ  of  the  body  is  too  large  or  too  small,  disease  exists. 
Taking  the  commercial  relations  and  problems  between  nations 
alone,  we  find  they  have  grown  so  fast  that  the  political 
arrangements  necessary  to  take  care  of  them  do  not  keep 
up  with  them.  In  the  terms  of  Herbert  Spencer,  who  was 
fond  of  calling  society  an  organism,  the  “regulative”  function 
of  the  European  social  organism  is  under-developed  as  com- 
pared to  the  “sustaining”  function. 

RAPID  TRANSPORTATION  PARTLY  RESPONSIBLE 

This  European  disease,  of  wdiich  militarism  is  the  con- 
sequence and  symptom,  has  become  acute  in  modern  times 
chiefly  because  of  the  sudden  growth  of  rapid  transportation 
and  communication.  A century  ago  the  natural  barriers  of 


8 


mountains,  rivers  and  distance  between  the  countries  of  Europe 
separated  them  at  least  as  widely  as  the  Atlantic  Ocean  now- 
separates  us  from  Europe,  if,  in  fact,  not  as  widely  as  the 
Pacific  separates  us  from  Japan  and  China.  But  the  railroad, 
steamship,  telegraph,  telephone  and  newspaper  have  nearly 
effaced  these  pristine  barriers.  They  have  therefore  been  very 
large  factors  in  aggravating  the  war  malady.  They  have,  as  it 
were,  produced  an  hypertrophy  of  commerce  and  other  forms 
of  international  contact  without  producing  the  regulative 
machinery  which  should  go  with  them. 

This  conclusion  is  somewhat  opposed  to  common  opinion. 
It  has  usually  been  supposed  that  the  development  of  inter- 
national trade  was  the  very  circumstance  which  would  save 
Europe  from  war.  Over  a half  century  ago  Cobden 
prophesied  that  international  trade  would  bring  international 
peace.  Yet  since  then  have  occurred  some  of  the  greatest 
and  bloodiest  wars  of  histor}-.  Cobden  wrote : “Whilst  the 

governments  are  preparing  for  war,  all  the  tendencies  of  the 
age  are  in  the  opposite  direction ; but  that  which  most  loudly 
and  constantly  thunders  in  the  ears  of  the  emperors,  kings 
and  parliaments  the  stern  command,  ‘You  shall  not  break  the 
peace,’  is  the  multitude  which  in  every-  country  subsists  upon 
the  products  of  labor  applied  to  material  brought  from 
abroad.”  It  is  true  that  the  growth  of  commerce  increases  the 
need  of  peace,  but  it  is  not  true  that  it  increases  the  probability 
of  peace. 

The  economic  usually  grows  faster  than  the  political. 
One  reason  is  that  the  former  grows  gradually,  the  latter 
by  sudden  leaps.  That  is,  the  growth  of  industry  and  com- 
merce is  continuous  and  quiet,  while  government  changes  are 
sudden  and  explosive.  It  is  the  fear  of  losing  a fraction  of 
“sovereignty”  which  keeps  political  structures  unchanged 
long  beyond  the  time  when  change  is  the  logic  of  the  situation. 
Political  structures  yield  at  last,  but  by  breaking,  not  by  bend- 
ing, just  as  the  hardened  surface  of  a lava  stream  occasionally 
breaks  to  conform  to  the  accumulating  pressures  of  the  liquid 


9 


lava  underneath.  The  result  is  that,  in  the  absence  of  inter- 
national government,  the  growth  of  international  interests  of 
other  kinds  has  actually  increased  the  risk  of  war  and  the 
need  of  great  armies  and  navies.  It  has  done  this  in  three 
ways : 

(1)  By  increasing  the  opportunities  for  friction. 

(2)  By  leading  to  commercial-colonial  expansion  and 
the  quarrels  always  attendant  on  that  process. 

(3)  By  increasing  the  speed  of  army  mobilization,  thus 
making  an  hour  now  of  equal  strategic  value  to  a 
week  of  former  times. 

Thirty  years  ago  Sir  Henry  IMaine  said  in  his  Inter- 
national Lartv : “1  suppose  that  of  the  causes  of  war  which 

we  know  to  exist  in  our  day,  there  were  never  so  many  com- 
bined as  in  Eastern  Europe  during  the  last  ten  years.”  What 
Cliffe  Leslie  once  said  is  even  truer  to-day:  “The  chances 

of  collision  with  continental  states  are  multiplied,  and  military 
institutions  and  ideas  seem  to  have  arisen  among  us  pari 
passu  with  increased  proximity  with  our  military  neighbors.” 

Railroads  are  not  only  channels  through  which  trade  may 
flow ; they  are  channels  through  which  troops  may  flow  as 
well.  Ships  and  automobiles  can  transport  not  only  passengers 
and  freight  but  soldiers.  We  all  agree  in  calling  the  revival 
in  Europe  of  military  practices  and  ideas  a retrograde  process. 
That  this  co-exists  with  an  amazing  progress  in  industry, 
science  and  thought,  is  not  only  interesting  as  a coincidence; 
it  is  attributable  to  the  very  same  cause — growing  proximity. 
Industrial  progress  has  broken  down  the  ramparts  of  nature, 
but  governments  have  replaced  them  with  the  fortress  and 
the  cannon.  We  have  sent  the  trading  vessel  steaming  between 
nations,  but  the  dreadnought  has  followed  in  its  wake.  We 
find  thus  the  interesting  paradox  that  while  wars  have  in  the 
last  generation  grown  less  and  less  to  be  desired  they  have 
become  more  and  more  frequent  in  number  and  more  extensive 
in  scope. 


10 


RACING  IN  ARMAMENTS 


The  armaments  of  Europe  are  a net  loss,  yet  no  nation 
can  afford  to  go  without  them.  Each  nation  of  to-day  would 
doubtless  be  safer  from  its  neighbors  if  standing  armies  were 
a half  or  a third  their  actual  size ; but  were  such  the  case  any 
one  nation  would  immediately  desire  to  increase  its  individual 
strength.  This  action  invites  a similar  increase  of  the  other 
nations  and,  at  last,  produces  a loss  and  not  a gain  to  all 
concerned.  As  long  as  the  nations  are  independent,  each 
nation  individually  acts  relatively  to  other  nations.  So  Eng- 
land’s naval  program  is  always  made  relative  to  the  naval 
strength  of  other  countries,  and  the  programs  of  other  coun- 
tries are  made  relative  to  that  of  England.  So  also  Germany 
has  adjusted  her  military  force  to  those  of  her  neighbors,  and 
the  latter  have  adjusted  theirs  relatively  to  Germany’s.  The 
argument  in  Congress  for  more  battleships  is  always  that 
the  United  States  must  keep  up  with  the  rest,  and  it  is  a good 
argument  so  long  as  we  have  no  voice  in  reducing  navies 
abroad.  The  result  is  a constant  tendency  to  expand.  The 
psychology  of  motive  is  for  each  nation  to  seek  military 
expansion  even  when  it  realizes  that  the  net  result  is  a loss 
to  all  concerned,  and  that  the  best  course,  if  all  would  follow 
it,  would  be  one  of  contraction.  If  any  nation  should  hold 
back  (as  many  who  have  never  understood  the  problem  have 
urged)  the  result  would  be  to  make  it  easier  for  the  other 
nations  to  surpass  it  in  military  strength. 

The  inevitable  result  is  a constant  race  or  competition. 
But  whatever  advantage  any  nation  gains  is  immediately 
taken  from  it  by  the  catching  up  of  the  others.  This 
military  competition  is  closely  analogous  to  cut-throat  com- 
petition in  business.  In  a railroad  rate  war  all  the  participants 
lose.  Yet  no  one  railroad  can  afford  to  keep  from  rate  cutting, 
otherwise  it  would  lose  still  more.  There  is  only  one  way  of 
avoiding  such  cut-throat  competition,  whether  of  railroads 
or  of  nations ; namely,  submission  to  a common  regulation. 


THE  NEED  OF  AN  INTERNATIONAL  GOVERNMENT 


Only  by  a general  agreement  can  we  secure  a general 
disarmament ; it  is  through  some  such  international  agree- 
ment— in  other  words,  some  rudiment  of  international  govern- 
ment— that  militarism  and  war  can  be  made  to  disappear  or 
diminish.  The  burning  question,  therefore,  is : Will  such 

an  agreement  follow  the  close  of  this  war?  Sooner  or  later 
this  great  war  will  be  followed  by  peace.  But  what  sort 
of  peace?  Will  it  be  stable  or  unstable?  Will  the  treaties 
of  peace  include  conditions,  the  fulfillment  of  which  will 
guarantee  all  concerned  against  the  recurrence  of  such  a 
struggle,  or  will  the  new  peace  amount  to  nothing  more  than 
another  long  armed  truce,  during  which  the  warring  nations 
will  recover  their  lost  armaments,  wealth  and  population,  and 
again  be  ready  to  fly  at  each  other’s  throats  after  the  lapse  of 
a quarter  or  half  a century?  To  us  neutrals  these  are  the 
important  questions,  far  more  important  than  the  question  of 
who  will  win  and  what  changes  in  the  territorial  possessions 
of  the  warring  nations  will  ensue. 

After  the  war  is  over  the  causes  for  international  quarrels 
will  be  no  less,  but  rather  more.  They  will  be  more  for  two 
reasons.  One  is  the  continuance  in  the  future  of  the  present 
steady  growth  of  international  relations  of  all  kinds.  Quarrels 
may  grow  out  of  international  trade  in  goods,  especially  where 
exclusive  trade  rights  in  new  territory  are  still  available ; or 
out  of  international  travel,  especially  of  officials  and  royal 
personages  and  of  immigrants  who  are  personae  non  gratae, 
such  as  Orientals  in  occidental  countries ; or  out  of  inter- 
national communication,  especially  where  the  public  press 
indulges  in  international  criticism.  Possible  discord  may 
spring  from  tariffs,  canal  and  other  trade  routes,  sea  fisheries, 
colonization  in  Africa,  exclusion  laws,  insults  to  the  flag, 
accidents  to  ships,  and  any  other  incidents  of  international 
contact.  The  other  reason  for  expecting  more  rather  than 
less  reason  for  quarrels  is  that  war  begets  war.  This  great 
world  quarrel  will  surely  leave  sores  which  cannot  heal  for 


12 


generations,  deeper  sores  than  those  left,  for  instance,  by  the 
Franco-Prussian  War.  Bismark  is  quoted  as  saying  that  he 
deprecated  war  with  France  because  such  a war  would  lead 
to  at  least  five  subsequent  wars.  It  is  time  for  all  people  to 
realize  the  wisdom  of  this  prophesy,  of  which  the  present  war 
is  the  first  step  in  fulfillment.  In  order  to  have  a stable  peace 
we  must  provide  machinery  to  handle  the  growing  volume  of 
questions  and  controversies  as  a routine  matter,  just  as  the 
courts  handle  the  numerous  personal  quarrels  in  any  civilized 
community. 

Such  machinery  must  involve  at  least  two  elements : A 

Court  of  Justice  to  render  decisions  on  international  disputes, 
and  a Military  or  Police  which  shall  enforce  the  decrees. 
That  is,  there  must  be  a judicial  and  an  executive  department 
of  an  international  government.  Ultimately  in  the  natural 
course  of  events  there  would  doubtless  follow  a legislative 
branch  as  well.  But  the  present  urgent  need  is  machinery 
to  keep  the  peace. 

To  secure  this  result  we  must  substitute  for  the  crude 
idea  of  the  balance  of  power  the  idea  of  the  pooling  of  power. 
The  power  pooled  must  exceed  the  power  of  any  individual 
nation.  The  new  combined  power  must  be  adequate  to  hold 
any  recalcitrant  state  to  its  agreements  and  to  insure  that 
it  will  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Court  of  Justice.  It 
should  have  command  over  both  the  naval  strength  and  the 
army  strength  of  the  component  nations.  Laws  without  power 
to  enforce  them  are  mockeries.  A league  of  peace  without 
the  power  to  keep  the  peace  would  be  a rope  of  sand.  In  fact, 
what  has  recently  happened  in  Europe  has  shown  us  that  we 
cannot  depend  on  treaties  without  force  back  of  them. 

ADVANTAGES  OF  COLLECTIVE  ACTION 

With  a true  peace  league  each  member-nation  would  have 
a double  restraint  from  attacking  any  other  member.  It 
would  be  restrained  by  its  own  promise  to  submit  its  grievances 
to  arbitration,  and.  what  is  more  essential,  it  would  be 


restrained  by  the  fact  that  to  fight  any  other  member  would 
mean  to  fight  all  other  members.  Such  a pooling  of  military 
strength  would  of  itself  tend  to  disarmament.  For  the 
psychology  of  motive  would  then  be  the  opposite  of  what  it 
now  is.  Each  nation  would  then  feel  that,  while  it  would 
have  to  bear  the  burden  of  its  own  military  force,  it  would 
not  be  getting  the  exclusive  benefit  of  it,  but  would  instead 
be  contributing  to  the  benefit  of  the  others.  Militarism  would 
be  felt  simply  as  a tax.  Instead  of  racing  to  get  as  large 
an  army  as  the  rest,  the  race  would  be  to  keep  the  quota 
as  small  as  the  rest.  An  individual  nation  would  feel  itself 
imposed  upon  if  it  maintained  the  largest  force  to  be  used 
for  the  benefit  of  the  other  members  of  the  league.  The 
military  force  of  an  individual  nation  would  seem  a burden 
on  the  nation,  with  no  benefit  which  could  not  be  had  without 
it.  The  uselessness  of  large  standing  armies  would  be  brought 
home  to  each  nation  individually.  If  France  and  Germany 
were  both  members  of  such  a league,  would  France  any 
longer  keep  a large  standing  army?  Not  for  defense  against 
Gennany,  since  England,  Russia,  Italy,  Belgium,  the  United 
States,  and  other  nations  would  have  agreed  through  the 
league  to  assume  that  defense  for  her.  Not  for  offense, 
because  these  same  nations  would  then  turn  against  her. 

The  original  colonies  of  which  the  United  States  is  now 
composed  viewed  each  other  with  the  same  distrust,  jealousy 
and  hostility,  as  do  now  the  sovereign  states  of  Europe. 
These  colonies  were  ready  to  fight  over  extension  of  territory 
or  exclusive  trade  rights.  When  these  colonies  united  into  the 
United  States,  such  feeling  gradually  disappeared.  The 
desire  for  each  state  to  be  strong  enough  to  fight  its  neighbor- 
ing states  was  replaced  by  a reluctance  to  expend  anything 
whatever  for  military  force.  It  is  now  with  difficulty  that 
even  a state  militia  can  be  maintained.  Once  in  our  history 
did  a group  of  states  rebel  against  the  rest,  but  to-day  every 
state  has  accepted  its  subordination  to  the  Union.  For  world 
peace  we  must  follow  the  same  course.  If  this  war,  the  civil 


14 


war  of  Europe,  should  lead  to  cementing  the  concert  of  the 
powers  into  a world  federation,  it  may  yet  be  worth  all  it 
costs. 

Certainly  if  all  concerned  could  look  at  the  proposition 
coolly  and  calculate  the  tw'O  sides  of  the  ledger  they  would 
find  the  gain  from  a pooling  of  interests  a hundred  times  the 
loss.  To  maintain  the  present  independent  sovereignties  costs 
treasure,  even  in  times  of  peace,  while  in  times  of  war  it  costs 
not  only  treasure  but  lives  and  racial  stamina.  In  spite  of 
the  war  marriages,  modern  war  means  the  mowdng  down  of 
the  flower  of  our  best  manhood,  the  cutting  off  from  parent- 
hood of  the  bravest,  strongest,  healthiest  young  men,  and  the 
leaving  to  their  less  sturdy  brothers  (whose  defects  in  stature, 
lungs,  heart,  eyesight  and  other  particulars  excluded  them 
from  the  army)  the  continuance  of  the  race.  Even  on  the  basis 
of  economic  advantages  alone  the  citizen  of  Europe  ought  to 
find  it  enormously  profitable  to  exchange  the  single  right  to 
shoot  his  neighbor  for  the  guarantee  of  his  own  security  and 
the  cancellation  of  the  major  part  of  his  taxation. 

OBSTACLES 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  we  are  not  sufficiently  rational 
to  weigh  the  question  coolly  and  that  it  is  idle  to  expect  any 
sovereign  government  to  surrender  one  jot  or  tittle  of  its 
sovereignty.  Can  we  expect  at  the  end  of  this  war  any  con- 
cessions except  those  forced  on  the  conquered  nations?  It 
is  certainly  obvious  that,  opposed  to  a program  of  any  kind 
of  unification,  will  be  the  natural  resistance  to  new  ideas 
and  a strong  tendency  to  cling  to  old  precedents.  The  great 
question  is : Will  or  will  not  the  rational  desire  for  stable 

peace  outweigh  the  foolish  desire  to  maintain  “unimpaired” 
the  right  to  make  war?  Will  those  who  control  the  policies 
of  the  European  nations  be  able  to  see  the  need  for  and  to 
bring  about  some  form  of  central  government  among  them? 
That  something  will  be  done  in  the  general  direction  of 
guaranteeing  peace  can  scarcely  be  doubted.  The  common 


15 


interest  must  play  some  part,  however  small.  It  always  has. 

Unless  this  something  is  constructive,  unless  it  is  some- 
thing which  cuts  loose  from  the  bondage  to  old  precedents,  the 
present  war  will  have  been  utterly  in  vain.  The  same  causes 
will  continue  to  produce  the  same  effects.  The  nations  will 
again  vie  with  each  other  to  possess  the  biggest  armies  and 
navies.  The  people  will  again  have  to  carry  an  increasing 
burden  of  taxation  and  of  military  duty,  and,  recurring  two  or 
three  times  a century,  there  will  again  come  wars  like  the 
present,  to  kill  off  the  best  and  leave  the  worst  in  the  popula- 
tion of  Europe.  Perhaps  those  in  power  may  have  the  wisdom, 
courage  and  humanity  to  decide  that  this,  the  first  of  world 
wars,  must  also  be  the  last. 

OUR  GOLDEN  OPPORTUNITY 

After  the  present  war  we  may  expect  a deeper  and  clearer 
sentiment  on  these  subjects  than  ever  before.  It  will  be  more 
than  ever  realized  that  war  to-day  is  an  anachronism ; that 
there  is  no  advantage  in  war  even  to  the  victor;  and  that  the 
disadvantages  are  vastly  greater  than  in  bygone  times.  It  is 
often  true  in  history  that  the  more  terrible  a calamity,  the 
greater  the  stimulus  to  prevent  its  recurrence.  On  this  prin- 
ciple, the  present  war  ought  to  be  followed  by  the  greatest 
opportunity  for  lasting  peace  which  Europe  has  ever  had. 
After  Europe  has  drunk  to  the  dregs  this  bitter  cup  of  sorrows, 
after  all  the  suffering  and  humiliation  to  come,  there  will 
scarcely  be  found  a man,  woman  or  child  in  Europe,  whether 
among  the  victorious  or  the  vanquished  nations,  who  will  not 
thirst  for  peace — for  a peace  which  will  endure.  Then,  we 
may  believe,  will  be  the  psychological  moment  for  constructive 
statesmanship  of  the  highest  order.  It  remains  to  be  seen 
whether  statesmen  are  available  who  can  rise  to  the  occasion. 
Whatever  eventuates  must  be  preceded  by  well  considered 
plans,  and  it  would  not  be  surprising,  if  the  right  men  think 
out  the  right  plans,  that  the  long  cherished  hopes  of  peace 
advocates  may  at  last  be  realized,  and  that  this  greatest  of 


i6 


wars  may  prove  but  the  precipitant  of  the  greatest  advance 
in  constructive  politics  which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  No 
one  can  yet  tell  what  particular  form  a lasting  peace,  if  brought 
about  at  all,  will  assume.  But  it  is,  I believe,  most  likely  to 
be  in  the  form  I have  mentioned,  an  international  agreement 
backed  up  by  military  force — a league  of  peace  such  as  Mr. 
Carnegie  once  proposed,  provided  with  some  form  of  inter- 
national police.  It  may  be  that  such  an  approach  to  a “Fed- 
eration of  the  World”  is  still  only  a poet’s  dream.  But,  it 
cannot  seem  more  remote  to-day  than  did  a general  European 
war  a short  time  ago.  Events  move  fast  in  these  days. 

A POSSIBLE  PLAN 

If  sufficient  agreement  could  be  secured,  the  best  plan 
would  seem  to  be  to  use  some  neutral  or  neutralized  terri- 
tory, whatever  seemed  most  expedient  — possibly  The 
Hague,  possibly  Belgium,  possibly  Alsace-Lorraine  in  case 
of  Germany’s  defeat,  or  Poland  in  case  of  the  defeat  of 
the  allies  — for  setting  up  the  first  machinery  of  an  inter- 
national court  and  administration,  the  head  offices  for  an 
international  army  and  navy  (or  for  co-ordinating  the 
national  armies  and  navies),  under  the  joint  control,  like 
the  international  postal  union  at  Berne,  of  all  nations  willing 
to  participate.  The  territory  might  thus  serve  as  a sort  of 
District  of  Columbia  for  a loose  Union  of  Nations.  On 
this  neutral  ground  in  the  heart  of  Europe  could  be  kept  a 
small  international  police  to  enforce,  if  need  be,  the  decrees 
of  the  Court  of  Justice.  The  contracting  nations  would 
agree  to  submit  all  future  disputes  to  this  court  and  to 
sanction  the  use  of  the  international  police  to  enforce 
the  decrees  of  that  court  against  any  refractory  member 
of  the  league.  It  could  also  be  provided  that  the  entire 
military  force  of  the  members  of  the  league  should  be 
subject  to  the  call  of  the  league  when  necessary.  The 
proposed  league  should  be  open  to  an  enlargement  of  member- 
ship as  other  nations  wished  to  put  themselves  under  its  pro- 
tection. The  league  would  in  essence  be  simply  a great  mutual 


17 


war  insurance  company,  and  any  nation  that  joined  would 
do  so  because  it  would  be  both  cheaper  and  more  effectual 
to  provide  against  war  by  paying  small  insurance  premiums 
to  a great  league  of  peace  than  by  maintaining  a great  army. 
The  league  would  be,  in  fact,  a rudimentary  super-govern- 
ment. But  its  powers  would  be  limited  to  the  one  function 
of  keeping  the  peace,  unless  by  common  consent  the  nations 
chose  to  add  to  those  powers  a supervision  over  other  inter- 
national affairs.  No  nation  would  lose  anything  except  the 
right  to  fight  other  nations. 

Such  a league  as  I have  proposed  could  not  be  expected  to 
act  as  an  absolute  preventative  of  war  in  Europe,  any  more 
than  the  formation  of  our  federal  government  was  an  absolute 
preventative  of  war  between  the  different  states  of  the  Union, 
or  than  our  municipal  governments  succeed  in  preventing  all 
riot  and  fighting  among  its  citizens ; but  it  would  greatly  lessen 
the  chance  of  war  by  affording  an  alternative  way  out  of 
disputes. 

If  the  treaty  of  peace,  when  it  comes,  cannot  of  itself 
include  a definite  program  for  making  the  peace  permanent, 
it  may  at  least  be  found  feasible  to  agree  to  call  a conference 
at  The  Hague  of  the  world’s  best  jurists  for  the  purpose  of 
drafting  the  articles  of  such  a lasting  treaty  for  submission 
subsequently  to  all  governments.  The  logic  of  the  situation 
must  have  its  influence.  The  solidarity  of  Europe  must  lead  to 
a greater  community  of  action.  Whether  what  is  done  is 
adequate  or  inadequate,  we  have  a right  to  expect  something. 
Political  evolution  must  go  on. 

SOME  PRECEDENTS 

It  was  the  natural  solidarity  of  the  German  States  which 
overcame  their  desire  to  continue  their  individual  independ- 
ence and  led,  first  to  the  Zollverein  and  then  to  the  German 
Empire.  It  was  the  natural  solidarity  of  the  Italian  States 
which  led  to  a united  Italy.  It  is  to-day  the  natural  solidarity 
of  the  Scandinavian  countries  which  is  leading  them  to  talk  of 


i8 


union.  This  is  the  first  efifect  of  the  war  in  that  direction 
In  the  world  as  a whole  there  has  been  a growth  of  inter- 
national action.  As  a consequence  of  increasing  propinquity 
and  commerce  there  has  grown  up  a network  of  treaties ; 
there  has  come  an  international  postal  union ; there  have  been 
international  agreements  as  to  weights  and  measures,  and  even 
coinage ; there  has  been  a growing  tendency  to  arbitrate  inter- 
national quarrels.  There  have  been  international  conferences 
and  treaties  growing  out  of  the  peace  movement,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  Peace  Palace  at  The  Hague.  The  peace 
conferences  and  treaties  as  to  the  rights  of  neutrals  have 
further  recognized  the  needs  of  commerce,  even  in  war.  What 
little  texture  of  so-called  international  law  we  now  possess 
is  the  outgrowth  of  maritime  commerce.  But  the  term  “inter- 
national law”  is  really  a misnomer.  To  be  real,  a law  implies 
enforcement.  At  present  we  have  no  international  law  be- 
cause w^e  have  no  international  force.  Our  so-called  law  is 
a precursor,  let  us  hope,  of  .regulation  by  force.  We  have 
had  international  treaties,  and  the  next  step  should  be  inter- 
national government.  If  some  of  the  heads  of  the  contend- 
ing  governments,  and  the  heads  of  neutral  powers,  especially 
the  United  States,  can,  as  soon  as  the  war  is  over,  present  a 
practicable  plan  to  keep  the  peace,  the  common  people  of 
Europe  will  welcome  it  with  glad  acclaim,  and  any  reluctant 
sovereigns  can  scarcely  avoid  accepting  it. 

PRESENT  TENDENCIES  TOWARD  PERMANENT  PE.\CE 

The  effort  in  both  the  Taft  and  Wilson  administrations 
to  secure  treaties  of  arbitration  are  steps  in  the  direction  of 
a peace  league.  Twenty-six  of  Mr.  Bryan’s  treaties  have  been 
signed.  Since  this  article  was  printed  in  the  New  York  Times 
last  August  the  idea  of  a world  league  of  peace  has  grown 
with  prodigious  rapidity,  not  coming,  it  is  evident,  from  any 
one  source,  but  springing  spontaneously  into  the  consciousness 
of  many  minds  and  winning  approval  as  it  has  been  passed 
along  from  one  to  another.  Mr.  Roosevelt,  like  Mr.  Carnegie, 


19 


had  favored  an  international  peace  league  and  an  international 
police  several  years  ago,  and  both  have  written  on  the  subject 
since  the  present  war  broke  out.  Lord  Bryce,  President 
Emeritus  Eliot,  Gen.  Nelson  Miles,  Mr.  W.  T.  Stead,  Sir 
Max  Waechlins,  Mr.  Wilbur  F.  Gordy,  Mr.  Norman  Angell, 
Congressman  Frank  O.  Smith,  Prof.  G.  B.  Adams,  Mr.  Frank 
Crane,  and  many  others  have  conceived  and  expressed  essen- 
tially the  same  idea. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  has  said:  “The  futility  of  international 
agreements  in  great  crises  has  come  from  the  fact  that  force 
was  not  back  of  them.  What  is  needed  in  international  mat- 
ters is  to  create  a judge  and  then  to  put  power  back  of  the 
judge.  The  policeman  must  be  put  back  of  the  judge  in 
international  law  just  as  he  is  back  of  the  judge  in  municipal 
law.  The  effective  power  of  civilization  must  be  put  back 
of  civilization’s  collective  purpose  to  secure  reasonable  justice 
between  nation  and  nation.  We  must  labor  for  an  inter- 
national agreement  among  the  great  civilized  nations  which 
shall  put  the  full  force  of  all  of  them  back  of  any  one  of 
them,  and  of  any  well-behaved  weak  nation  which  is  wronged 
by  any  other  power.” 

President  Emeritus  Eliot  has  expressed  himself  as  follows: 
“There  can  be  no  secure  peace  in  Europe  until  a federation 
of  the  European  States  is  established,  capable  of  making 
public  contracts  intended  to  be  kept  and  backed  by  an  over- 
whelming international  force  subject  to  the  orders  of  an 
international  tribunal.” 

Says  Congressman  F.  O.  Smith  of  Maryland  in  a speech 
before  the  House  of  Representatives : “All  the  peace  that  ever 
existed  wdthin  any  nation  is  compulsory ; it  would  not  last 
five  minutes  were  it  not  for  the  presence  of  the  executive 
power  with  its  well-filled  store  of  powder  and  ball.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable how  universal  peace  could  exist  without  a similar 
executive  power  strong  enough  to  beat  down  all  opposition  and 
compelled  by  self-interest  to  maintain  peace.”  Mr.  Hamilton 


20 


Holt,*  editor  of  The  Independent,  has,  I believe,  worked  out 
the  idea  of  a Peace  League  in  fuller  and  more  practical  detail 
than  any  one  else. 

The  most  encouraging  feature  of  the  situation  is  that 
whereas,  when  this  article  was  first  sketched  out,  twenty-five 
years  ago,  the  dream  of  a world  government  seemed  as 
Utopian  as  when  Tennyson  had  his  vision  of  it  seventy  years 
ago,  to-day  the  whole  world  is  whispering  of  it  as  a possibility, 
and  it  is  being  thought  of  not  only  in  academic  and  literary 
circles,  but  by  those  who  have  or  have  had  an  active  part  in 
political  affairs.  Instead  of  ridiculing  the  idea,  they  are  ask- 
ing how  it  can  be  realized  and  are  seeking  to  work  out  the 
details.  There  are  several  separate  movements  working  to 
this  end,  which  are  going  quietly  forward  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic.  I may  mention  the  English  “Union  of  Demo- 
cratic Control,”  the  South  German  Democrats,  the  International 
Peace  Bureau,  with  Senator  La  Fontaine  of  Belgium,  Presi- 
dent, the  Dutch  Anti-War  Council,  the  World  Peace  Founda- 
tion of  Boston,  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  Jane  Ad- 
dams’  Women’s  Peace  Party.  It  is  certain  that  before  long 
there  will  be  launched  more  specific  proposals  than  any 
hitherto  published.  There  seems  now  to  exist  a golden 
opportunity  to  enlist  the  sympathy  and  the  judgment  of  mil- 
lions of  neutrals,  and  later  of  the  belligerents  themselves,  on 
the  momentous  question  of  how  to  protect  from  future  de- 
struction the  treasures,  physical  and  human,  of  civilization 


* “The  Way  to  Disarm:  a Practical  Proposal,”  The  Independent, 
September  28,  1914. 


21 


-I 


4 


h\ 


'M 


'I 


( 


V 


t 


The  Church  Peace  Union 

{Founded  by  Andrew  Carnegie) 

TRUSTEES 


Rsv.  Peter  Ainslie,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Rev.  Arthur  Judson  Brown,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Francis  E.  Clark,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Boston,  Mass. 
President  W.  H.  P.  Faunce,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Providence,  R.  I. 
His  Eminence,  James  Cardinal  Gibbons,  Baltimore,  Md. 
Rt.  Rev.  David  H.  Greer,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York 
Rev.  Frank  O.  Hall,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Bishop  E.  R.  Hendrix,  D.D.,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Rabbi  Emil  G.  Hirsch,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  111. 

Hamilton  Holt,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Professor  William  I.  Hull,  Ph.D.,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 

Rev.  Charles  E.  Jefferson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Jenkin  Lloyd  Jones,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  111. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  L.ywrence,  D.D.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Frederick  Lynch,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Charles  S.  Macfarland,  Ph.D.,  New  York. 

Marcus  M.  Marks,  New  York 

Dean  Shailer  Mathews,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Chicago,  HI. 

Edwin  D.  Mead,  M.A.,  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  William  Pierson  Merrill,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 
John  R.  Mott,  LL.D.,  New  York 
George  A.  Plimpton,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Rev.  Julius  B.  Remensnyder,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 
Judge  Henry  Wade  Rogers,  LL.D.,  New  York. 

Robert  E.  Speer,  D.D.,  New  York. 

Francis  Lynde  Stetson,  New  York. 

James  J.  Walsh,  M.D.,  New  York. 

Bishop  Luther  B.  Wilson,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  New  York. 


